And also points out something that Indians refuse to accept -that there was an indigenous rebellion against the dictator Maharajah in various parts of Kashmir before the Tribals and Pakistan Army joined in.
In fact, I have pointed out several times how the Maharajah's brutal crackdown against the rebellion resulted in thousands of refugees into Pakistan and acted as a catalyst for the Tribal invasion.
Agreed that Dogras were autocratic just like any royals of that time. But instead of supporting the revolutionaries, and giving some status to the president of gilgit (Even as a politcal agent) Pakistani actions caused resentment. Later on, once Sheikh Abdulla was released from prision, and the tribals wrecked havoc not only among non-muslims but among the muslims as well, they moved to call in Indian support.
So we might say that initially the people of G-B and even Kashmir might have joined Kashmir if tribals hadn't entered. But their actions negated this. Infact, like one of the sepratist leaders said that Pakistan through its action pushed Kashmir into India's lap in 1948.
Lets not get self-righteous here. While you may argue that India granted autonomy in principle to IaK a long time ago, it is also true that the region has been under the occupation of over 500,000 Indian military and paramilitary forces, with tens of thousands (innocent civilians) killed, tortured and raped by those security forces.
I do agree that Pakistan should have extended autonomy a long time ago, ala Azad kashmir, but better late than never.
I apologies if I sounded like that. I know you will understand that communicating on forum is impersonal.
Regarding troops in J&K, it was only after 1988 that troop levels had to increased massively. Before that there was not even popular protest against India. While I agree that during the 90s gross violations of human rights occurred. In the past few years, its the militants who have outpaced human rights violations wether it be murder or rape or just plain terrorism. Any army, para-military or police officials involved are prosecuted and sentenced, including backdated cases.
Technically G-B is not part of Pakistan, it is disputed, and if the region is landlocked by Pakistan, should there not be some sort of 'visa' process in place to track people? I don't see harm in it either way personally, though I think it would be better from a PR PoV to not have any bureaucratic hurdles in movement.
Free and fair media is a relatively new phenomenon in all of Pakistan (thanks to Musharraf). Given time it will expand into G-B as well.
All good but I guess we will just have to wait and see.
I don't see why the canvassing of pro-independence groups is 'most important'. They advocate a solution that is not endorsed in the UNSC resolutions which is what Pakistan's official position is based on.
That is because that is one of the opinions held by a large section of the valley population. It might not be popular in Pakistan, but then again, any pro-independence Kashmirs have been discouraged arrested or killed.
While the viability of an Independent J&K is another discussion given the present geo-political scenario, not having that option means people of J&K (or at least some of them in the valley) are not given what they really want.
If Pakistani policy is still to deny the Independence option, then we can agree that resolution of Kashmir is not a moral dilemma but resolving geo-politcal and strategic concerns whether they be water issues or security and what Kashmirs want has nothing to do with it. This was the early policy adopted by Pakistan up until the 80s, it was only later that it was given a communal color to fan extremism.
